Opinion
05-22-00859-CV
05-07-2024
DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, ET AL, Appellees
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-06299
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Breedlove
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
This appeal challenges seven interlocutory orders. Because none of the orders appeared appealable, we directed appellant to file a jurisdictional letter brief. See Jack B. Anglin v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (appeal may be taken from final judgment that disposes of all parties and claims or interlocutory order if allowed by statute). Rather than file a letter brief, appellant filed a "verified notice of removal" to federal district court. Accordingly, we abated the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (providing that upon notice of removal of civil action, state court "shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded"). For the reasons that follow, we reinstate the appeal, deny all pending motions, and dismiss the appeal for lack of an appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at 272.
The orders denied appellant's motion to recuse the trial judge, granted a motion to quash subpoena and for protection, granted a motion to quash service, and granted separately the motions to dismiss the claims against three of the thirteen appellees.
The motions pending before the Court are appellees Bankers Standard Insurance Company, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Dallas County, Texas Department of Insurance, Teamsters Local 767, UPS, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the case and appellant's third motion for an extension of time to file a response. In their motion, appellees note that the federal district court dismissed the "removed case" without remand, and appellant has exhausted all appellate remedies in the federal court system. They assert that, because the federal district court's order has become final, no remand will occur and, therefore, we cannot reacquire jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal.
A review of the federal district court's dismissal order, attached to appellees' motion, as well as a review of the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation, which the district court accepted in its dismissal order and of which we take judicial notice, reveals, however, we improvidently abated the appeal. As reflected in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation, appellant is subject to a sanctions order in the district court and must obtain leave to proceed in that court. Upon the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court denied leave, and the removal was not effectuated. Therefore, an abatement was not mandated, and an order of remand is unnecessary. We deny appellees' and appellant's motions.
We note that, prior to the abatement, we had granted appellant two extensions-an additional four weeks-to file the jurisdictional letter brief, and the brief was due on the day appellant filed the notice of removal. We also note that our last extension order cautioned appellant that further extensions would be disfavored, and we had previously cautioned her that failure to file a jurisdictional letter brief could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As previously stated, appellant did not file a letter brief, filing instead the notice of removal. Accordingly, with nothing before us reflecting the challenged orders are appealable, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at 272.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.